quote:"You can't even get them to answer a call because normally they're writing tickets," said Thomas Martin, chief investigator for the Crittenden County Sheriff's Department. "They're not providing a service to the citizens."
Now the police chief has disbanded his force "until things calm down," a judge has voided all outstanding police-issued citations and sheriff's deputies are asking where all the money from the tickets went.
I'm not a huge fan of policepeople. I think they're generally kind of dumb and self-righteous, which is why I find stuff like this hysterical and not all that surprising. These Sheriff's Deputies sound a little better.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"shooting an unarmed fire chief in the back in court when he complains about extortion" is indeed stupid, but I could think of a few choicier words about this police department.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
seriously, the fact that it doesn't seem like the offending officer is going to get much punishment from SHOOTING A MAN IN THE BACK just seems ridiculous to me.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone gets a speeding ticket on the same day they were in court for a different ticket, perhaps they should, I don't know, stop speeding. I used to get speeding tickets on a regular basis, but I haven't gotten one in 6 years because I stopped speeding. Funny how that works.
Of course, getting shot in the back is kind of harsh. Sounds like it was in some sort of fight. I can't imagine a scuffle in a courtroom that contained 7 police officers and one unarmed man that could possibly need deadly force applied. Crazy.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's unclear exactly what happened next, but Martin said an argument between Payne and the seven police officers who attended the hearing apparently escalated to a scuffle, ending when an officer shot Payne from behind"
I think this "police force" needs to stay disbanded, seeing as all seven of them are in a court house at one time while the entire town has no protection anyway.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in an Iowa town of about 600 people that shares one law enforcement officer with another town several miles away. Seven cops for a town of less than 200?
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not a huge fan of policepeople. I think they're generally kind of dumb and self-righteous...
Strangely enough, that's precisely what I think of folks who say things like that about cops. Dumb in this case could be debated, but self-righteous is certainly undeniable.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
IME, about half of all cops (roughly) are dangerous, unstable people who shouldn't even be allowed to OWN guns, let alone be allowed to carry guns in public. The other (roughly) half are nice.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not a huge fan of policepeople. I think they're generally kind of dumb and self-righteous...
Strangely enough, that's precisely what I think of folks who say things like that about cops. Dumb in this case could be debated, but self-righteous is certainly undeniable.
In some of the words of Ben Harper, and maybe a couple of mine, "If you don't like my fire, don't come around, but being an asshat is unnecessary." Now read what you wrote and then attempt to justify it with an AP article that backs up your premise.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
to be fair airmanfour, you should be the person to back up your claim. you posted one article. that's anecdotal. Not to mention the fact that you're not going to find many articles written about how a certain town has well mannered intelligent police. That's not what gets attention.
I've personally known many police officers in my life. Friends, family members of friends. I'm currently acquainted with a handful as well. They're all decent folk. Maybe there's no geniuses among them, but they're by no means dumb. It's pretty insulting to make such a broad generalization about a whole profession.
Sure, there are many police officers who fit your description, but there's many of every profession that fit your description.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In some of the words of Ben Harper, and maybe a couple of mine, "If you don't like my fire, don't come around, but being an asshat is unnecessary." Now read what you wrote and then attempt to justify it with an AP article that backs up your premise.
First off, it's hardly your fire. It's a common idea, after all - cops are dumb and self-righteous, that is.
Second, you put this up on an online discussion board of which I'm a member, so you're pretty much asking folks to come around to 'your' fire. Especially since my response was topical, not to your article but to your post.
Third, as Strider says, your one article hardly backs up your premise. Unless I somehow missed it and your premise was 'these specific cops are stupid and self-righteous'.
Anyway, while it should be clear I think the comment was pretty dumb, that's not what I said was undeniable-or do you deny being pretty self-righteous?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Well, imagine a town of less than 200 where people are going 58 mph in their driveways.
I wonder how long the driveway was? I've seen some half-mile driveways out in the country, or at least they were called driveways. More like short roads.
Mind you, it's a pure question, not trying to make a point. This department sounds like it would write a ticket for going 58 in one's own garage. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My bad. I didn't give you my reasoning. So I will.
I just plugged "Average IQ Police Officer" into Google and the only article that gave out numbers states that police are dumb. Like 104 IQ dumb. Low pay for too much confrontation and the power seem to be what attract the average/stupid to local and county police work.
They're probably self-righteous because they spend the majority of their time as the only people that haven't done anything wrong in situations where people are doing wrong things. I'd get that way too.
I'm human. I saw an anecdotal reference that supports a prejudgment I've made about cops in general and I thought I'd share. I typed how I feel and I still don't think I'm wrong.
I don't care if apologists don't like the way I express my thoughts, right is right and dumbf**kery is dumbf**kery.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Well, imagine a town of less than 200 where people are going 58 mph in their driveways.
I wonder how long the driveway was? I've seen some half-mile driveways out in the country, or at least they were called driveways. More like short roads.
Mind you, it's a pure question, not trying to make a point. This department sounds like it would write a ticket for going 58 in one's own garage.
Yeah, it probably was a long driveway. Still. You gonna let that slide, if you're in charge?
So... a police officer's IQ is, on average, above average?
Interesting that you call that dumb...
Not that I disagree with your article, or that there are plenty of dangerous or corrupt cops, but you don't exactly help yourself by bringing in evidence that cops are smarter than the norm, on average.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems that a population with an average intelligence of 100 IQ is doing just fine in creating an advanced technological civilization, even with its flaws, so a group with an average IQ of 104 doesn't strike me as too bad, really.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Well, imagine a town of less than 200 where people are going 58 mph in their driveways.
I wonder how long the driveway was? I've seen some half-mile driveways out in the country, or at least they were called driveways. More like short roads.
Mind you, it's a pure question, not trying to make a point. This department sounds like it would write a ticket for going 58 in one's own garage.
Have you seen some of the garages that Elton John, Rowan Atkinson, and some of the Saudi Arabian royalty have? Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I just plugged "Average IQ Police Officer" into Google and the only article that gave out numbers states that police are dumb. Like 104 IQ dumb.
"Like 104 IQ dumb."
You're a very, very silly person.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just plugged "Average IQ Police Officer" into Google and the only article that gave out numbers states that police are dumb. Like 104 IQ dumb. Low pay for too much confrontation and the power seem to be what attract the average/stupid to local and county police work.
Well, that's progress of a sort. First you cite a completely anecdotal story as 'evidence', and now you've got precisely one link giving concrete information, and now that's 'evidence'. Maybe after another twenty rounds of prodding, you'll have a well-reasoned and defended conclusion to make?
Like, for example: average human intelligence is said to be 100, putting average police officer IQ above average. So your theory fails on that basis alone.
quote:They're probably self-righteous because they spend the majority of their time as the only people that haven't done anything wrong in situations where people are doing wrong things. I'd get that way too.
So what's your excuse for being self-righteous? Do you realize how you're sounding? 'They're probably self-righteous'. You're talking about a group numbering hundreds upon hundreds of thousands across the country. Exactly how much experience with law enforcement do you have that grants you the authority to speak in such broad terms about such a large group?
quote: I'm human. I saw an anecdotal reference that supports a prejudgment I've made about cops in general and I thought I'd share. I typed how I feel and I still don't think I'm wrong.
I don't care if apologists don't like the way I express my thoughts, right is right and dumbf**kery is dumbf**kery.
Just because you're human doesn't entitle you to make stupid, inaccurate blanket generalizations about groups of people, no matter what prejudgments you've made. Though at least you're candid enough to admit this is all founded on a prejudgment of yours.
Right is right, and dumbf*#@ery is indeed dumbf@#$ery. So you ought to make a bigger effort to fit into the first category rather than the second.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with airmanfour here, IQ 104 is dumb. And yes, I do know it's above average. The two statements do not contradict.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm with airmanfour here, IQ 104 is dumb. And yes, I do know it's above average. The two statements do not contradict.
Seeing as how 'dumb' is a completely subjective term and not in the least objective, it does contradict.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've often mused about how, in our society, its acceptable to acknowledge that some people are bad at music, or art, or sports, while others excel in these areas. Its not considered to be a character flaw if you can't paint like rembrandt or dance like Fred Astair. I think most people would agree that "average musical ability" makes you a poor musician, that average athletic ability is unimpressive and average artist ability means you couldn't draw a realistic portrait to save your life. But for some reason, it is considered rude to assert that anyone is dumb and elitist to suggest that average people are not very smart.
I've often mused over why it is that high intelligence is the one talent our society struggles to accept as a gift which a few have but most do not. Over time I have come to the conclusion that the explanation is quite simple. You don't have to have any musical ability, to appreciate great music. You don't have to be able to draw well to appreciate great art. The clumsiest person can appreciate graceful dancing. The most out of shape couch potato can recognize strength, speed, and agility.
But you have to have a minimum level of critical thinking ability to recognize and appreciate clear reasoning. You have to be smart to recognize and appreciate intelligence in others. Intelligence isn't adequately respected because most people aren't smart enough to even recognize that they are dumb.
[ September 05, 2009, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Why are we even talking about IQ points? They are a poor-ish measurement of intelligence.
On what basis do you conclude they are poor (or poor-ish whatever that means)? What measure do you think we should be discussing instead? IQ scores have their weaknesses, but I think most psychologist would agree that the correlation between IQ scores and a) the ability to learn, b) the ability to apply knowledge, and c) logical reasoning are very strong even if imperfect.
Though there are many criticism of IQ testing, there is no widely used measure that is accepted to be better. The biggest problems with IQ arise when it is used cross culturally. Within a given culture, IQ is a fairly decent measure of intelligence. Not great but certainly not poor either.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just plugged "Average IQ Police Officer" into Google and the only article that gave out numbers states that police are dumb. Like 104 IQ dumb. Low pay for too much confrontation and the power seem to be what attract the average/stupid to local and county police work.
Well, that's progress of a sort. First you cite a completely anecdotal story as 'evidence', and now you've got precisely one link giving concrete information, and now that's 'evidence'. Maybe after another twenty rounds of prodding, you'll have a well-reasoned and defended conclusion to make?
Like, for example: average human intelligence is said to be 100, putting average police officer IQ above average. So your theory fails on that basis alone.
quote:They're probably self-righteous because they spend the majority of their time as the only people that haven't done anything wrong in situations where people are doing wrong things. I'd get that way too.
So what's your excuse for being self-righteous? Do you realize how you're sounding? 'They're probably self-righteous'. You're talking about a group numbering hundreds upon hundreds of thousands across the country. Exactly how much experience with law enforcement do you have that grants you the authority to speak in such broad terms about such a large group?
quote: I'm human. I saw an anecdotal reference that supports a prejudgment I've made about cops in general and I thought I'd share. I typed how I feel and I still don't think I'm wrong.
I don't care if apologists don't like the way I express my thoughts, right is right and dumbf**kery is dumbf**kery.
Just because you're human doesn't entitle you to make stupid, inaccurate blanket generalizations about groups of people, no matter what prejudgments you've made. Though at least you're candid enough to admit this is all founded on a prejudgment of yours.
Right is right, and dumbf*#@ery is indeed dumbf@#$ery. So you ought to make a bigger effort to fit into the first category rather than the second.
Ha! I'm done, your refusal to accept the obvious is one of the things that makes responding to you a waste of my time. I know you're hoping that if I think out loud for you I'll realize the error of making broad generalities and what an idiot I am for doing so. Not going to happen.
My hope is that you learn that putting groups of people into boxes (figuratively) better prepares you for interaction with those groups. Individuals are best dealt with on a case by case basis after generalizations have been made. It helps. There being exceptions to rules relies on there being rules for people to follow. Don't bother disagreeing, it takes more than simple interaction with trolls to make me re-evaluate lessons learned via my experience. Yes, I too have experience. Probably different than yours, even!
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My hope is that you learn that putting groups of people into boxes (figuratively) better prepares you for interaction with those groups. Individuals are best dealt with on a case by case basis after generalizations have been made. It helps.
Sure, and of course you've never chafed when people generalize american servicemen as violent, sociopathic morons.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though there are many criticism of IQ testing, there is no widely used measure that is accepted to be better. The biggest problems with IQ arise when it is used cross culturally. Within a given culture, IQ is a fairly decent measure of intelligence. Not great but certainly not poor either.
What are we defining as a culture? Why are they unable to be applied across cultures? How do we know that the average police officer's life experience isn't substantially culturally different from the average mathematician next door?
I dislike IQ tests, as I think they make certain people out to be stupid who are, in the real world, quite intelligent, and certain people who are quite stupid in the real world out to be quite intelligent. Being ruthlessly able to logically figure stuff out certainly isn't the be-all end-all of intelligence.
Finally, if 100 is supposed to be the average intelligence of the human race and the average IQ of police is 104, what is particularly interesting about that? All it means is that police officers have an average distribution of intelligences, ranging from the relatively stupid to the intelligent.
I would be unsurprised to find this is true of many jobs not requiring a vast amount of post-secondary education.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being ruthlessly able to logically figure stuff out certainly isn't the be-all end-all of intelligence.
Being able to logically figure stuff out is pretty much the definition of intelligence. Intelligence is certainly not the only valuable cognative abilityl and it is very likely not the most important life skill. But that isn't the same as saying that every like skill is a kind of intelligence. That just a way of saying that real intelligence, i.e. logical reason ability, isn't a real and valuable talent. It is and people who have that talent deserve respect for their abilities just like those with great musical talent or athletic ability or incredible interpersonal skill should be recognized for their unusual gifts.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a little skeptical of your claim that people with extraordinary reasoning capabilities aren't respected as much as artists and athletes. Pretty much every detective show or story ever is an homage to reasoning skills (among other skills).
However, I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting this:
quote: That just a way of saying that real intelligence, i.e. logical reason ability, isn't a real and valuable talent.
No, it's a way of saying that logical reasoning ability isn't the only tool in the bucket when it comes to being a functioning, well-rounded member of society like a police officer. It would make no sense to have a police officer without other skills as well of equal strength. Reasoning often relies on observation.
You say, "real intelligence", suggesting you (or a collection of thinkers) have chosen to call reasoning "intelligence". I personally prefer to use 'intelligence' to refer to a collection of skills that rely on reasoning to put them all together. Perhaps it is a more subjective definition, but it is one I am happier with.
I'd like to take small issue with your lumping musical skill into one ability along with "intelligence" (which you define as logical reasoning.) Musical intelligence is also a package of skills. Some people are excellent technical players but have no musicality. Others are the reverse. Some cannot memorize but play well, others play poorly but can memorize. Some memorize primarily visually, others aurally, others kinetically. I have a very good ear and sing well (which is a kinetic thing), but I do not have the musical ability to hear and dissect music the way a true musician does. It's not a level of degree I am missing, as if 'musical intelligence' is a single lump, it's a question of puzzle pieces.
I think that logical reasoning is merely a single piece of a group of skills that come together to form what we colloquially call intelligence and apply to "smart people".
I believe that each person contains such a complicated set of skills that a lack of one skill doesn't necessarily mean that the person lacks intelligence-- even of a specific kind. My musical ability, for example, is still what most people would call being musically talented over 75 or 80% of the population, despite me lacking this crucial ability that many true musicians have. I suspect I could learn something of it, but compared to my father, who sits down at the piano and plays by ear with no musical training, it's clear that I mostly lack this.
But we get by. You can be a successful musician without being able to write music or play by ear. Some athletes lack stamina so they become sprinters. A police detective might lack reasoning skills, but have a keen eye and ear, or a good memory.
I think it does intelligent people a disservice to describe "intelligence" so narrowly. We all have the capability to compensate for skills we lack, and the skills we lack do not necessarily define us, even in terms of something like intelligence.
quote:Ha! I'm done, your refusal to accept the obvious is one of the things that makes responding to you a waste of my time. I know you're hoping that if I think out loud for you I'll realize the error of making broad generalities and what an idiot I am for doing so. Not going to happen.
Nothing to say about 104 IQ being 'dumb', eh? And I'm the one refusing to accept the obvious.
As for the obvious, I didn't actually expect you would realize how mistaken you were to be making such blanket generalizations. Folks in the habit of doing that generally don't. I was hoping you'd provide more gems along the lines of an average 104 IQ being dumb, or how one anecdotal article actually serves as evidence for your sweeping premise. Maybe you'd at least have been compelled to admit you didn't have any good evidence to support your conclusion.
quote:
My hope is that you learn that putting groups of people into boxes (figuratively) better prepares you for interaction with those groups. Individuals are best dealt with on a case by case basis after generalizations have been made. It helps. There being exceptions to rules relies on there being rules for people to follow. Don't bother disagreeing, it takes more than simple interaction with trolls to make me re-evaluate lessons learned via my experience. Yes, I too have experience. Probably different than yours, even!
Sure, it's helpful-when the group is better defined than 'cops'. Dude, you can't fairly make the sorts of claims you're making about cops even when the focus gets quite a bit tighter and unified by belief. I'd object to the sort of nonsense you're spouting if you were talking about 'Democrats' or 'Presbyterians' or 'boxers'. They're too big. Too many people come to the table for too many reasons for you to say 'they're usually dumb and self-righteous', as you've thoroughly illustrated in this thread though perhaps not in the way you might have hoped.
It's also fascinating that in a conversation that started 'cops are dumb and self-righteous', you're the one flinging the troll complaint. As far as experiences go, that's not exactly new, but it's still entertaining.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My hope is that you learn that putting groups of people into boxes (figuratively) better prepares you for interaction with those groups. Individuals are best dealt with on a case by case basis after generalizations have been made. It helps.
Sure, and of course you've never chafed when people generalize american servicemen as violent, sociopathic morons.
No chafing. I've met some of those guys. They're kind of annoying, but are also extremely useful when you need a mountain blown up or a house exploded.
It's understood that those guys are out there and that the rest are obligated to contrast with that image. I wonder if cops have similar briefings.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's understood that those guys are out there and that the rest are obligated to contrast with that image. I wonder if cops have similar briefings.
So with soldiers - the group you belong to or have belonged to - 'those guys are out there', but with cops, they're generally dumb and self-righteous.
quote:My hope is that you learn that putting groups of people into boxes (figuratively) better prepares you for interaction with those groups. Individuals are best dealt with on a case by case basis after generalizations have been made. It helps.
Sure, and of course you've never chafed when people generalize american servicemen as violent, sociopathic morons.
No chafing. I've met some of those guys. They're kind of annoying, but are also extremely useful when you need a mountain blown up or a house exploded.
It's understood that those guys are out there and that the rest are obligated to contrast with that image. I wonder if cops have similar briefings.
Yeah right. No chafing? I've read you chafe at those types of generalizations on this very forum. I even remember you getting salty over a gross generalization someone made about people working for military intelligence.
This is rapidly turning hypocritical on your part.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's understood that those guys are out there and that the rest are obligated to contrast with that image. I wonder if cops have similar briefings.
So with soldiers - the group you belong to or have belonged to - 'those guys are out there', but with cops, they're generally dumb and self-righteous.
quote:My hope is that you learn that putting groups of people into boxes (figuratively) better prepares you for interaction with those groups. Individuals are best dealt with on a case by case basis after generalizations have been made. It helps.
Sure, and of course you've never chafed when people generalize american servicemen as violent, sociopathic morons.
No chafing. I've met some of those guys. They're kind of annoying, but are also extremely useful when you need a mountain blown up or a house exploded.
It's understood that those guys are out there and that the rest are obligated to contrast with that image. I wonder if cops have similar briefings.
Yeah right. No chafing? I've read you chafe at those types of generalizations on this very forum. I even remember you getting salty over a gross generalization someone made about people working for military intelligence.
This is rapidly turning hypocritical on your part.
Link please. I tried to find what you're talking about and failed.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is rapidly turning hypocritical on your part.
'Turning' is probably the wrong word for it. 'Has turned' would be more accurate, seeing as how it's acceptable to blanket generalize for cops, but with soldiers it's just a matter of 'sure, they're out there'. Not that soldiers in general are that way, just that some soldiers are.
And airmanfour, I'd be interested in hearing about your the extensive, detailed, nationwide experience with police officers that qualifies you to make the statements you're making truthfully, instead of just being a guy hatin' on cops.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there truely no updates on this story, or is my google-fu weak at the moment. If anyone finds new information please share it with the rest of us, Id hate to see this all swept under the rug.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Finally, if 100 is supposed to be the average intelligence of the human race and the average IQ of police is 104, what is particularly interesting about that? All it means is that police officers have an average distribution of intelligences, ranging from the relatively stupid to the intelligent.
I would be unsurprised to find this is true of many jobs not requiring a vast amount of post-secondary education.
Uh, knowing the average tells you nothing about the distribution. It could be that ALL police officers have 104 IQs, and it could be that half have an IQ of 52 and half have an IQ of 156.
I would suspect that the distribution of police IQs has a much shorter range (excluding a few outliers) than the regular population.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect that the distribution of police intelligence is roughly equal to that of any other not-particularly-academic job, and that it's a bell curve around 100 with the lower end slightly more suppressed than the higher end. It's worth noting that the 100 average of humanity as a whole includes people with IQs of 50 and 60, who are in effect disabled and will never hold a real paying job. It follows that the average for people in actual jobs is going to be a bit higher. Suppressing one end of a scale can have a surprising amount of effect on the average even though the tails only include 0.1% of the population.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
What are you wowing? I know I've made no contributions to this thread whatsoever, but as an outside observer I'd have to say that you're making no sense.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I just plugged "Average IQ Police Officer" into Google and the only article that gave out numbers states that police are dumb. Like 104 IQ dumb. Low pay for too much confrontation and the power seem to be what attract the average/stupid to local and county police work.
That's kind of astonishing to me, coming from you, of all people.
Because almost all of the current police officers that I know now (of the current generation) are ex-military people. So are you saying all of the military is dumb, as well?
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, he's already made his stance clear on that. Some soldiers are dumb, and it's just a thing the rest (most) of them have to contend with.
Not cops, though. They're generally dumb and self-righteous. Don't tell him otherwise, though, `cause he's got lots of experience, and putting huge groups of people in boxes is a good thing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
<sarcasm>Guys...it's all very simple. All the "dumb" soldiers become cops when they leave the military.
It was staring us right in the face, and airman has been completely consistent this whole time. </sarcasm>
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
